A plaintiff's EEOC charge determines the scope of her right to file suit. In order to ensure that the plaintiff's employer has notice of the plaintiff's allegations and that the EEOC has an opportunity to resolve the parties' dispute, a plaintiff cannot raise claims in litigation that did not appear in her EEOC charge. See Sydnor , 681 F.3d at 593. However, because laypersons, rather than lawyers, often complete EEOC charges, the administrative charge "does not strictly limit" a plaintiff's subsequent civil suit. ld. at 594 (quotation omitted). Instead, the court must construe the charge liberally, and allow the plaintiff to advance claims in litigation that "are reasonably related to [her] EEOC charge and can be expected to follow from a reasonable administrative investigation." Sydnor, 681 F.3dat 594 (quotation omitted); Balas v. Huntington Ingalls Indus., Inc. , 711 F.3d 401, 407-08 (4th Cir. 2013).

Press Ganey argues that this court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Cone-Swartz's ADA retaliation claim in the amended complaint because the claim exceeds the scope of her EEOC charge. Specifically, Press Ganey contends that Cone-Swartz's EEOC charge did not provide sufficient notice of her ADA retaliation claim. In support, Press Ganey cites Cone-Swartz's EEOC charge and notes that Cone-Swartz did not check the retaliation box or otherwise assert retaliation when completing her EEOC charge. Cf. Am. Compl., Ex. A (copy of EEOC charge).

In opposition, Cone-Swartz makes two arguments. First, Cone-Swartz argues that she did not have to exhaust her administrative remedies concerning her ADA retaliation claim and could assert her ADA retaliation claim for the first time in federal court. See Pl.'s Mem. in Opp. 11. Second, Cone-Swartz concedes that she did not check the retaliation box on her EEOC charge, but claims that she described retaliatory conduct in her EEOC intake questionnaire and that her retaliation claim thereby fell within the reasonable scope and investigation of her ADA reasonable accommodation claim and her ADA failure to promote claim. See id. 11-15.

In sum, defendants' motion to dismiss [D.E. 32] the ADA retaliation claim in plaintiff's amended complaint is GRANTED under Rule 12(b)(l). Plaintiff's ADA retaliation claim in count three of the amended complaint is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.